20 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1961–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Missouri courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. McDonaldgreen2 sentences2024However, in so doing, the Court also acknowledged that the actual testimony at issue, which was excluded in whole, would have been general in nature regarding the factors affecting reliability and would not have gone so far as to apply the discussed factors or reach any conclusion or opinion as to the accuracy of the identification at issue, because such testimony would have been improper as “[t]his is the sole province of the jury.” Id. at 363 (emphasis in original) (citing State v. Guilbert, 306 Conn. 218 , 246, 49 A.3d 705 , 729 (2012) (expert testimony about factors affecting reliability o 2024However, in so doing, the Court also acknowledged that the actual testimony at issue, which was excluded in whole, would have been general in nature regarding the factors affecting reliability and would not have gone so far as to apply the discussed factors or reach any conclusion or opinion as to the accuracy of the identification at issue, because such testimony would have been improper as “[t]his is the sole province of the jury.” Id. at 363 (emphasis in original) (citing State v. Guilbert, 306 Conn. 218 , 246, 49 A.3d 705 , 729 (2012) (expert testimony about factors affecting reliability o | 1 | 1 |
Bass v. Stategreen1 sentence2016We find it unnecessary to determine how to classify this exception, agreeing with the State that it does not apply. 7 In Bass v. State, 950 S.W.2d 940, 944 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997), this Court discussed the exception in upholding the conviction of a woman charged with rape for forcing her eleven-year-old daughter to have sexual intercourse with another person. | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. United Brick & Tile Co. v. Wrightgreen2 sentences2006The court discussed the standard applied when tort liability is at issue, noting that in this situation “the dominion [of the subsidiary by the parent] may be so complete, interference so obtrusive, that by the general rules of agency *5 the parent will be a principal [in the conduct of the business] and the subsidiary an agent.” Id. at 808 (citation and internal quotations omitted). 2006Nevertheless, the court stated, “Even greater liberality would be indulged in a proceeding, such as this, to compel an examination of corporate books.” Id. (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
McHaffie Ex Rel. McHaffie v. Bunchgreen1 sentence2000In McHaffie v. Bunch, 891 S.W.2d 822, 825-26 (Mo. banc 1995), in obiter dictum, the court discussed the claim of negligent hiring which had been recognized in Gaines v. Monsanto Co., 655 S.W.2d 568, 570-71 (Mo.App.1983). | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Todd v. Rominesgreen1 sentence2000Todd v. Romines, 806 S.W.2d 690, 692 (Mo.App.1991)). | 1 | 1 |
Gibson v. Stategreen1 sentence2000Claims are “separate,” however, “if they require proof of different facts and the application of distinguishable law, subject to the limitation that severing the claims does not run afoul of the doctrine forbidding the splitting of a cause of action.” This court discussed this doctrine in Creel v. Union Electric Company, Inc., 950 S.W.2d 315, 317 (Mo.App.1997), stating that “[t]he test for determining whether or not a cause of action is single, and cannot be split, is: (1) whether the separate actions brought arise out of the same act, contract, or transaction; or (2) whether the parties, subj | 1 | 1 |
Gaines v. Monsanto Co.green1 sentence2000In McHaffie v. Bunch, 891 S.W.2d 822, 825-26 (Mo. banc 1995), in obiter dictum, the court discussed the claim of negligent hiring which had been recognized in Gaines v. Monsanto Co., 655 S.W.2d 568, 570-71 (Mo.App.1983). | 1 | 1 |
Chromalloy American Corp. v. Elyria Foundry Co.green1 sentence1999See also Mahoney v. Doerhoff Surgical Services, Inc., 807 S.W.2d 503, 506 (Mo. banc 1991) and Chromalloy American Corp. v. Elyria Foundry Co., 955 S.W.2d 1, 3-4 (Mo. banc 1997) in which the court discussed this rule in the context of appealability. | 1 | 1 |
Mahoney v. Doerhoff Surgical Services, Inc.green1 sentence1999See also Mahoney v. Doerhoff Surgical Services, Inc., 807 S.W.2d 503, 506 (Mo. banc 1991) and Chromalloy American Corp. v. Elyria Foundry Co., 955 S.W.2d 1, 3-4 (Mo. banc 1997) in which the court discussed this rule in the context of appealability. | 1 | 1 |
Powers v. Ellfeldtgreen1 sentence1995In Powers v. Ellfeldt, 768 S.W.2d 142, 146 (Mo.App.1989), the court discussed an instruction which did not refer the jury to any act or omission of the defendant physician in his treatment of the plaintiff. | 1 | 1 |
Richardson v. Wendelgreen2 sentences1992In Richardson v. Wendel, 401 S.W.2d 455, 460 (Mo.1966), this Court allowed the plaintiff to be impeached with her petition against the ambulance driver in a lawsuit where she also sued the driver of another vehicle which collided with the ambulance. 1992In Richardson v. Wendel, 401 S.W.2d 455, 460 (Mo.1966), this Court allowed the plaintiff to be impeached with her petition against the ambulance driver in a lawsuit where she also sued the driver of another vehicle which collided with the ambulance. | 1 | 1 |
Sunshine Realty Corp. v. Killiangreen2 sentences1991Count III is based upon the allegation that such fraud existed and it has now been determined that fraud did not exist. *957 In Sunshine Realty v. Killian, 702 S.W.2d 95, 98-101 (Mo.App.1985), this court discussed the doctrine of collateral estop-pel, set forth the elements of that doctrine, and pointed out that it precludes the reexamination of previously litigated issues whether those issues are of fact or law. 1991This court also pointed out that the doctrine may properly come into play “on the basis of an adjudication of a portion of one proceeding when that portion has become final prior to the review of other portions of that proceeding.” Id. at 99 . | 1 | 1 |
State ex rel. B_ C_ C v. Conleygreen2 sentences1984B_ C_ C_ v. Conley, 568 S.W.2d 605, 608 (Mo.App.1978), the court discussed the standard for allowing a new right of disqualification. 1984The court stated that Brault v. Kyser, 562 S.W.2d 172, 174 (Mo.App.1978), “teaches that any judicial proceeding which raises ‘a new issue’ and which seeks ‘distinctly different relief’ from that which was previously before the court constitutes a ‘civil action’ as the term is used in Rule 51.05_ The consummate test appears to be rooted in basic and fundamental concepts of right and fairness.” (Emphasis added.) The court in Conley summarized the rules when it stated “the real test is whether it is the ‘kind of independent proceeding which does in fact adjudicate rights of individuals, irrespect | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Brault v. Kysergreen1 sentence1984The court stated that Brault v. Kyser, 562 S.W.2d 172, 174 (Mo.App.1978), “teaches that any judicial proceeding which raises ‘a new issue’ and which seeks ‘distinctly different relief’ from that which was previously before the court constitutes a ‘civil action’ as the term is used in Rule 51.05_ The consummate test appears to be rooted in basic and fundamental concepts of right and fairness.” (Emphasis added.) The court in Conley summarized the rules when it stated “the real test is whether it is the ‘kind of independent proceeding which does in fact adjudicate rights of individuals, irrespect | 1 | 1 |
Wheaton v. Reiser Companygreen1 sentence1984Referring to an earlier decision, Wheaton v. Reiser Co., 419 S.W.2d 497, 499 (Mo.App.1967), this court discussed the requirement of a claimant to “show that death resulted from an accident arising out of and in the course of employment.” This court went on to point out: “There is no question that the accident, i.e., the fall, occurred ‘in the course of’ employment. | 1 | 1 |
City of Lexington ex rel. Menefee v. Commercial Bankgreen2 sentences1983Menefee v. Commercial Bank, 130 Mo.App. 687 , 108 S.W. 1095, 1096 (1908): The maxim that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of others not expressed is not to be accepted as a hard and fast canon of statutory construction, but as a guide to point to the legislative intent which, when ascertained, should dominate the construction to be placed on the enactment. 1983Menefee v. Commercial Bank, 130 Mo.App. 687 , 108 S.W. 1095, 1096 (1908): The maxim that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of others not expressed is not to be accepted as a hard and fast canon of statutory construction, but as a guide to point to the legislative intent which, when ascertained, should dominate the construction to be placed on the enactment. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Mendoza
green
2 sentences2024However, in so doing, the Court also acknowledged that the actual testimony at issue, which was excluded in whole, would have been general in nature regarding the factors affecting reliability and would not have gone so far as to apply the discussed factors or reach any conclusion or opinion as to the accuracy of the identification at issue, because such testimony would have been improper as “[t]his is the sole province of the jury.” Id. at 363 (emphasis in original) (citing State v. Guilbert, 306 Conn. 218 , 246, 49 A.3d 705 , 729 (2012) (expert testimony about factors affecting reliability o 2024However, in so doing, the Court also acknowledged that the actual testimony at issue, which was excluded in whole, would have been general in nature regarding the factors affecting reliability and would not have gone so far as to apply the discussed factors or reach any conclusion or opinion as to the accuracy of the identification at issue, because such testimony would have been improper as “[t]his is the sole province of the jury.” Id. at 363 (emphasis in original) (citing State v. Guilbert, 306 Conn. 218 , 246, 49 A.3d 705 , 729 (2012) (expert testimony about factors affecting reliability o | 1 | 2024–2024 |
United States v. Dalm
green
2 sentences1998Id. (citing United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596, 607 , 110 S.Ct. 1361, 1367 , 108 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990); Block v. North Dakota, 461 U.S. 273, 287 , 103 S.Ct. 1811, 1819 , 75 L.Ed.2d 840 (1983); United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 , 100 S.Ct. 1349, 1351 , 63 L.Ed.2d 607 (1980)). 1998Id. (citing United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596, 607 , 110 S.Ct. 1361, 1367 , 108 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990); Block v. North Dakota, 461 U.S. 273, 287 , 103 S.Ct. 1811, 1819 , 75 L.Ed.2d 840 (1983); United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 , 100 S.Ct. 1349, 1351 , 63 L.Ed.2d 607 (1980)). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Double \LL\" Contractors
green
1 sentence1998Id. (citing United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596, 607 , 110 S.Ct. 1361, 1367 , 108 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990); Block v. North Dakota, 461 U.S. 273, 287 , 103 S.Ct. 1811, 1819 , 75 L.Ed.2d 840 (1983); United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 , 100 S.Ct. 1349, 1351 , 63 L.Ed.2d 607 (1980)). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
United States v. Mitchell
green
2 sentences1998Id. (citing United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596, 607 , 110 S.Ct. 1361, 1367 , 108 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990); Block v. North Dakota, 461 U.S. 273, 287 , 103 S.Ct. 1811, 1819 , 75 L.Ed.2d 840 (1983); United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 , 100 S.Ct. 1349, 1351 , 63 L.Ed.2d 607 (1980)). 1998Id. (citing United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596, 607 , 110 S.Ct. 1361, 1367 , 108 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990); Block v. North Dakota, 461 U.S. 273, 287 , 103 S.Ct. 1811, 1819 , 75 L.Ed.2d 840 (1983); United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 , 100 S.Ct. 1349, 1351 , 63 L.Ed.2d 607 (1980)). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Block v. North Dakota Ex Rel. Board of University & School Lands
green
2 sentences1998Id. (citing United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596, 607 , 110 S.Ct. 1361, 1367 , 108 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990); Block v. North Dakota, 461 U.S. 273, 287 , 103 S.Ct. 1811, 1819 , 75 L.Ed.2d 840 (1983); United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 , 100 S.Ct. 1349, 1351 , 63 L.Ed.2d 607 (1980)). 1998Id. (citing United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596, 607 , 110 S.Ct. 1361, 1367 , 108 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990); Block v. North Dakota, 461 U.S. 273, 287 , 103 S.Ct. 1811, 1819 , 75 L.Ed.2d 840 (1983); United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 , 100 S.Ct. 1349, 1351 , 63 L.Ed.2d 607 (1980)). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Phillips v. Hallmark Cards, Inc.
green
2 sentences1993In Phillips v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 722 S.W.2d 86 (Mo. banc 1986), the Court discussed the rule’s development and noted arguments advanced by other courts as support for its continued viability, such as assumption of the risk and public policy considerations. 3 Id. at 88 . 1993In Phillips v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 722 S.W.2d 86 (Mo. banc 1986), the Court discussed the rule’s development and noted arguments advanced by other courts as support for its continued viability, such as assumption of the risk and public policy considerations. 3 Id. at 88 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
MacHeca v. Fowler
green
2 sentences1992In Macheca, 412 S.W.2d at 466 , this Court discussed this exception to the exclusionary rule demonstrated by Hoffman and recognized in Flex-O-Lite . 1992In Macheca, 412 S.W.2d at 466 , this Court discussed this exception to the exclusionary rule demonstrated by Hoffman and recognized in Flex-O-Lite. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
State v. Sidebottom
green
2 sentences1989State v. Sidebottom, 753 S.W.2d at 920 . 1989State v. Sidebottom, 753 S.W.2d at 920 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
State v. Tyler
green
2 sentences1980In State v. Tyler, 306 S.W.2d 452 (Mo.1957), the defendant escaped jail while two charges of statutory rape were pending. *729 The Court discussed a rule adopted in some jurisdictions that evidence of a defendant’s escape while awaiting trial for two or more distinct charges is not relevant to show he is guilty of either. 4 The Court rejected the rule that such evidence should be excluded, stating: We are of the view that the cases wherein that rule has been applied have confused the admissibility of evidence with the weight to be given by a jury to the evidence adduced as to the circumstances 1980That is to say, except in those instances where the trial court, as with any other issue, should declare as a matter of law that the evidence is insufficient for a jury reasonably to find that defendant escaped or fled wholly or partially on account of the pendency of the charge on trial, the question of whether an escape shows a consciousness of guilt of the offense on trial is a jury question. 306 S.W.2d at 459 . | 1 | 1980–1980 |
State v. Reese
green
2 sentences1979The court discussed the rule relating to evidence of other crimes as stated in State v. Reese, 364 Mo. 1221 , 274 S.W.2d 304 (banc 1954) and the exceptions thereto. 1979The court discussed the rule relating to evidence of other crimes as stated in State v. Reese, 364 Mo. 1221 , 274 S.W.2d 304 (banc 1954) and the exceptions thereto. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
In Re Adams
green
1 sentence1976In the ease of In re Adams, 248 S.W.2d 63 (Mo.App.1952), the court discussed this requirement and its purpose, saying at 66: “One of the salutary objects of the General Assembly in lately introducing this new requirement into the adoption laws was to provide a sufficiently long period prior to the adoption hearing to allow the foster parents and the child sought to be adopted to become thoroughly adjusted to each other in the prospective home and to provide time for investigation so that the court at the hearing may be fully informed as to the advisability of making the temporary placement per | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Alonzo v. Laubert
green
1 sentence1974In Alonzo v. Laubert, 418 S.W.2d 94 (Mo.1967), the court discussed the doctrine of part performance as it relates to removal of the statute of frauds from application. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
State ex rel. Kennan v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.
neutral
2 sentences1961Kennen v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 94 Mo.App. 184 , 67 S.W. 958, 963 , the court discussed an instruction on permissive interest. 1961Kennen v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 94 Mo.App. 184 , 67 S.W. 958, 963 , the court discussed an instruction on permissive interest. | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Dickensheet v. Chouteau Mining Co.
neutral
2 sentences1961The instruction provided, “ * * * to which you may add 6% interest * * *. ” The court ruled “But it did in fact leave the allowance of interest to the discretion of the jury, and, if the defendants were not satisfied with the instruction, they should have asked for a more definite direction.” Cf. Dickensheet v. Chouteau Mining Co., 200 Mo.App. 150 , 202 S.W. 624 . 1961The instruction provided, “ * * * to which you may add 6% interest * * *. ” The court ruled “But it did in fact leave the allowance of interest to the discretion of the jury, and, if the defendants were not satisfied with the instruction, they should have asked for a more definite direction.” Cf. Dickensheet v. Chouteau Mining Co., 200 Mo.App. 150 , 202 S.W. 624 . | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.